GrizzlyAK: The Cloud is a joke. Anyone who would put their personal or corporate data, or creative work, willingly into the hands of a vendor that you have to pay rent to to use their products (or any company, for that matter), isn't serious about data security, or is just uninformed. I recently bought CS6 Master anticipating that it will be the last Adobe product I buy, ever, i.e., if the 'cloud' is the future for Adobe products. This is not a business model we end users want for the future of SW. That wouldn't be an option to users of CC. All you photographers and creatives ask yourself this: What happens 5 years from now when you've stopped paying rent and someone wants to pay you a premium for that fantastic PS file you created from that perfect image. Um... Go ahead, commit to a 12 month lease so you can access the file. Yeah, didn't think so.
The flash and acrobat plugins have been on the unending patch cycle since before Chrome was written and are still constant security problems. Did Adobe hire ex Outlook programmers?
kurtizone: There are several security approaches that Adobe and every other cloud service should be using instead of those that expose a password on the wire. Just Google federated SSO or SAML or OpenID Connect. They package up a credit card number as a claim inside a digitally signed and encrypted token. The cloud service decrypts and unpacks the token, processes the credit card transaction and then deletes the credit card number from memory. The cloud provider doesn't need to store credit card info, where Chinese and eastern bloc criminals can get hold of them. How do you know if an online service, if it stores your card number, is encrypting or hashing your data? You don't and the cloud provider apparently doesn't care. The world is moving to a cloud model for software-as-a-service. Yet SAML and other claims-based technologies aren't being widely adopted in spite of stupidities like those of Adobe.
Adobe has been building the security flaws right in by design with the flash and acrobat reader web browser plugins to the point they surpassed Microsoft's IE and Outlook as infection vectors. With that kind of longstanding wreckless disregard for security in products intended for our use on a hostile network, they deserve no benefit of the doubt. It's apparently a corporate culture.
These shots look like bridal portrait sessions before the wedding, although the blog talks about using the lens at the wedding.I find blur in front of or below the subject usually detracts from a conventional portrait. It feels like somethings in the way when the print is viewed.
For dreamy, other-worldly styles I can see a T/S shining. Really high key shots where everything but the bride is blown out should work well. The kind of artistic intent that a lensbaby works with should suit a T/S too.
The B&W shot on the beach with the bride striding out of frame seems to work, while the one below it with the bride squatting really isn't to my taste at all.
I like the way her fingers echo the lines across the small of her back.Who made the hose/body suit?
mrxak: Every picture in this article is following some compositional rule or another that I am aware of. Composition is more than just putting certain elements in certain fixed places on the frame. The subject(s) still need to be interesting, or there has to be interesting tension, etc. Some things are more objective than others.
I think a better thesis would be that there are many, many rules, some of them contradictory, and it's good to know all of them so you have some idea which ones to use in which situation, and which ones to acknowledge and then ignore.
Maybe rules isn't the right word for it, anyway. It's more like, this has worked for artists in the past. They give you a framework for understanding good images, in the hopes that we can find success as well. I think your best point in the whole article is the one about doing specific projects. I am routinely inspired to experiment with different compositional concepts as a basis for a specific project.
It's best to understand all of the rules. Breaking the rules without a plan usually leads to a weaker image. Understanding what the rule seeks to avoid, then breaking the rule in specialized cases to deliberately cause the effect often strengthens an image. Breaking one rule solidly while following the others that apply is nearly always a stronger composition than breaking several rules at once. A few readers have noticed that the images in this article do follow several rules while breaking one. Each rule you break past the first multiplies the difficulty in creating a successful image. Break each rule because the rule breaking will change the viewer's perception of the image in a desired way.
The optical flaws of large aperture lenses are more pronounced at the edges of the lens. If this camera uses micro lenses does the software sample light more from the center of the lens as DOF is increased in post? Does that result in a reduction of Coma, chromatic aberration and increased sharpness? i.e. Does the image improve optically in a similar way to stopping down the lens when increasing the DOF?
love_them_all: This kind of effect can be easily "copied" by a software. Take a picture with the max DOF, then in post the software can burr out zones of the picture...
Cy, if you have a lens with an aperture so large the DOF is too small for the scene you could shoot it wide open anyway to gather enough light that you can then increase the shutter speed. Now motion blur is reduced, but your DOF is too shallow. With this technique, you could increase your DOF in post.High ISO doesn't blur shots, it adds noise. Noise reduction often does at blur though. There is the potential that this technique could smooth noise in a way similar to picture stack averaging, which could slightly sharpen the image while it reduces noise - as in astro photography.Actual 1st gen products may not be capable of either improvement even if technically possible.
At $1400 or more they've saddled the camera with proprietary Sony memory sticks? At this price point Sony also requiring highly marked up memory is unacceptable.
I agree the baseline lens separation is too narrow for telephoto 3D. I'm curious as to why Sony didn't at least use the full width of the existing housing. Perhaps going wider would have required toeing in the lenses at closer focus distances. Does anyone know if the camera adjusts toe to prevent double images in 3D?